No Evidence

[sparky]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

75/77...…..very convincing.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

.we do know that CO2 is to feeble an absorber and emitter to warm anything above -80 degrees F. Think I am wrong...then lets see the observed, measured evidence...whats that skidmak? don't have any?...just models?

What's the temperature on the surface of Venus Shit for Brains?

What the atmospheric pressure on Venus?

 

[Billy_Bob]

75/77...…..very convincing.

And that was after they threw away 11,944 papers to get to their beloved 77...

 

[ConservativeAmerica]

Why do climate change alarmists have such a terrible track record of failed predictions?

 

[jc456]

Why do climate change alarmists have such a terrible track record of failed predictions?

why?

 

[Wuwei]

you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?

To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.

o we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged. if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure. in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure? Answer the question.

observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.

No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.

Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?

To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.

o we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged. if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure. in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure? Answer the question.

observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.

No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.

Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

.

Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?

Please answer with a number between 0 and, well yeah, it's probably 0 and you won't respond

 

[CrusaderFrank]

you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?

To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.

o we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged. if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure. in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure? Answer the question.

observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.

No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.

Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

.

Are you claiming that a 100% CO2 atmosphere at Earth's pressure will generate a surface temperature of 735K?

 

[SSDD]

To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.

you are famous for taking things out of context...i am looking at what you wrote...you said that long wave radiation was a molecule.

No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.

no observed measured evidence to challenge my statements in the OP. Thats what i said.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.

Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

As i have said before, you can't properly apply the SB law to an atmosphere...gasses are not black bodies. The fact that the SB law gets venus wrong tells you that either r=the SB law is wrong, or that you can't apply it to atmospheres...my bet is that it isn't wrong.

 

[SSDD]

you said...and i quote: "Molecules of it's own substance means long-wave IR in the case of CO2."
If that sentence is not saying that long wave IR is a molecule, then what does it say?

To understand what it says, all you would have had to do is look at Tyndall's context. That awkward quaint phrase by Tyndall refers to the fact that the hot CO2 was source of emitting radiation in that particular experiment. If you didn't understand that, you lost the entire point of his observations.

o we are back to unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable models and my statements in the OP remain unchallenged. if the physics you describe were correct then there would be a pronounced tropospheric hot spot...there isn't...predictive failure. in real science what happens to a hypothesis that has even one predictive failure? Answer the question.

observation does not jibe with your models....therefore, they are wrong.

No, we are not back to unobservable models. We are back to your second statement of your OP and your lack of understanding of the law of conservation of energy.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. The difference is 157 W/m² of radiation energy that has to go somewhere. Of course there are a lot of other energy flows going on in the atmosphere, but that 157 radiation energy still has to be accounted for.

Your favorite planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

.

Are you claiming that a 100% CO2 atmosphere at Earth's pressure will generate a surface temperature of 735K?

sounds like that is exactly what he is saying...what a hoot huh?

 

[Wuwei]

Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?

I have no idea.

 

[Wuwei]

Are you claiming that a 100% CO2 atmosphere at Earth's pressure will generate a surface temperature of 735K?

Of course not.

 

[SSDD]

Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?

I have no idea.

Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?

I have no idea.

Jesus, what are we spending billions of dollars "researching"?

 

[SSDD]

Are you claiming that a 100% CO2 atmosphere at Earth's pressure will generate a surface temperature of 735K?

Of course not.

if you want to predict the temperature on venus, or any other planet with sufficient atmosphere, look to the molar version of the ideal gas law which applies to atmospheres...not the SB law, which doesn't.

 

[SSDD]

Hey Mr. Hot CO2. What is the expected temperature increase, if any, when increasing CO2 from 280 to 400PPM in an Earth-like environment?

I have no idea.

Jesus, what are we spending billions of dollars "researching"?

Moving on to trillions and still not a single piece of observed measured evidence to challenge my 3 basic statements.

 

[Wuwei]

Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.

I'm addressing your statement #2. You still haven't answered.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. What happens to the difference, 157 W/m², that has to go somewhere.

The planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

 

[Wuwei]

if you want to predict the temperature on venus, or any other planet with sufficient atmosphere, look to the molar version of the ideal gas law which applies to atmospheres...not the SB law, which doesn't.

You don't have to predict the surface temperature of Venus. It was observed and measured to be 735 K. That means it radiates 15,700 W/m² where does all that energy go?

 

[SSDD]

Which goes to my statement #3..no published paper which measures and quantifies the hypothetical warming we are causing and then attributes it to so called greenhouse gasses.

I'm addressing your statement #2. You still haven't answered.

The earth is radiating 396 W/m² from it's surface but only 239 W/m² makes it to outer space. What happens to the difference, 157 W/m², that has to go somewhere.

The planet Venus is at 735 K which means it is radiating 15,700 W/m², according to the SB law. Where do you think all that energy goes?

Still no observed, measured evidence...if there were, you wouldn't need to ask...you could just post the observed, measured evidence....models that can't replicate reality are not evidence. Why do you keep talking? Are you just stupid? Do you think no one is noticing that you aren't posting the evidence i asked for?